Rodricks takes short cuts in the marriage debate

In claiming that "there are no sound arguments against granting same-sex couples the right to be married," Mr. Rodricks omits his views of both "rights" and "marriage" — two essential components of his argument ("The irrational fears of same-sex marriage foes," Sept. 10).

By "rights," does he mean natural rights inherent in man's design or socially-constructed rights determined by public opinion statistics? By "marriage," does he mean a relationship rooted in the physical, psychological and spiritual sexual design of men and women, or a socially-constructed, legal category for bureaucratic administration?

If rights and marriage are both merely arbitrary social constructs, then his argument is sound; otherwise, it is not. And that's precisely what underlies the surface political rhetoric. That debate is a very deep one that cannot occur in a few paragraphs or rhetorical sound-bites.

These are heady days for advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this spring in a group of cases that could settle the question of a national Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and this week, a decision not to enter a stay on the enforcement of a...

A recent suggestion that some people should be exempt from serving gays because of their religious beliefs is nonsense. If you are licensed to provide a service or employed by the government to do so, you are required to perform that service without unlawful discrimination. Neither government...

Madeleine Mysko's recent commentary advised that 645 commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA will vote later this month whether to accept marriage equality for the LGBTQ community ("Presbyterians to vote on marriage equality," June 6).

According to Tom Schaller's column ("Hate if you must, just don't act on it," March 5), any American who does not subscribe to Mr. Schaller's particular credo on the law and homosexuality is a hater. Such blanket condemnation and name-calling are more appropriate to a bigot than an academic.

Just when I think nothing else outrageous can be done in the name of religious freedom, along comes the Arizona bill allowing business owners the legal right to refuse service to gays and others on the basis of said freedom.